Suggestion: clearly state in the beginning of a scenario where to maintain garrisons

[pantsukki]

Quite many scenarios seem to require you to keep an X amount of elements/legions in the border areas, but AFAIK there's no way of knowing about these requirements before you remove some of the troops. So could we please receive a note in the beginning of a scenario, which clearly states the borders which should be garrisoned, and with how many troops?

[Ebbingford]

I think it is quite realistic not knowing.
Try to play and think historically. Yes, you might get away with removing some forces from the borders of the empire, but is the risk worth taking? Those forces are out on the outskirts for a reason after all.

[Huskalator]

I agree with the OP and just to add to it I think there is too much trial and error required in regards to a lot of the events and not enough information presented at the start of the scenario. A player playing a scenario for the first time should have a reasonable idea of what to expect.

[yellow ribbon]

this trial and error destroyed the military influence in Roman history. and challenges the player

for one scenario/faction you have it in game, about Parthians.
quite a few things happen by decisions. you cant get a message beforehand if your opponent decides it on daily basis with probability in it

[Sir Garnet]

A good principle of game design is to warn, tell or hint to the player to cue him to think about certain things. Borders with tribal or other powers are an example. It would be good to have some clue as to the nature of the relationship. One game technique is pre-programmed messages by characters offering opinions one may take or leave as they may be right or wrong . . . .

[yellow ribbon]

A good principle of game design is to warn, tell or hint to the player to cue him to think about certain things. Borders with tribal or other powers are an example. It would be good to have some clue as to the nature of the relationship. One game technique is pre-programmed messages by characters offering opinions one may take or leave as they may be right or wrong . . . .

see, the best example is the MS87 scenario, for it doesnt work as many of you expect it.

you get the clue of the sea-travel-all-med.sea objectives, you get the chances what might happen in what harbor. yet the messages in the harbors when you arrived, have to tell the WHOLE story again AND the decision taken by your allies. the messages have to be that generic, that they dont tell you what happens next, for they dont know what you did before.

i find that rather messing up. too much dependents on the player. its becoming a "you might still want to do" listing of events in game
if you want to give some immersion into the games feeling/time depicted, then you loose text for explaining event chains

next, on Crete and in Asia minor your allies will be able to be attacked from pirates, then the units will be unlocked anyway despite failing the advised and multiple times precise described event.

other events have ranges in which what happens, others need one or more events firing before. if you bring in that many red messages which tell you information like a "paradox games pop up window you have to click on yourself" you still lack the point to look back in the games history what already happens. unless you create the lack of "future" information in the text as a cost for this "you might want to" informations

imagine what will happen if you get several messages multiple times in 100 turns, you find them exploitable and play streamlined....

the general events, not the eastereggs should be listed in the manual one day, but as they stated, they had no time for it.